gripes and such

Question: Why show BlogTv on the real television network? Isn’t the essence of the name itself that it should remain on blogs? I am just irritated at how some of these content are masqueraded as news. They are not news, in the blogging community of the US sense, they are merely opinions expressed on the internet and reiterated on tv for people who perhaps only watch tv and not surf. None of that stuff is new, in terms of substance wise. And it’s definitely not investigative journalism. Oh yar, and while I’m on this subject, the whole Stomp thing is a little lacklustre as well. Youthink I’m in favour of, but Stomp is just a tad like trying too hard in winning the young people over because the bloggers are pretty / handsome. Not cool leh.

And I don’t think that tapping into someone else’s network is trespass, although Andy Ho begs to differ. I’ve been thinking abt it and wanting to get some research done, but I’m a little lazy. But here’s the thing, it’s different when someone else taps into your network to say, commit a crime. That’s clearly fraudulent, and should not be used to support the case that tapping into a network should then be criminal in order to protect the network holder. The fraud itself is criminal, it’s the same as forgery or taking someone else’s identity fraudulently. Whether this takes place on the telephone or the internet does not matter. Therefore, one simply has to prove the case for fraud. The network owner is unlikely to be held responsible for such a crime by default since he can plead fraud. Of course this is all subject to proof but I do not think that a crime like identity fraud or surfing questionable material online will be made a strict liability crime. Strict liability is a legal doctrine that makes a person responsible for the damage and loss regardless of their blameworthiness.

As for the actual requirements before trespass is proved, there must be an intrusion upon a person’s property. Property is defined as a bundle of rights over land / real property. Rights over intangible property are intellectual property rights. Airspace is definitely real property if not owning high rise flats will be an issue. By that same token, one could argue that subscribing to wireless gives one a bundle of rights over the …? Is it airspace? I personally think it concerns more of airwaves than airspace. Basically, to claim trespass there is a problem, because property rights are rights that can be enforced against the world at large. In other words, its very basis is that it excludes people from that same enjoyment or use of rights. The thing is even among 2 subscribers staying close to each other, the range of airwaves overlaps. Hence, it may something else, an easement or some other common space shared by people. Either way, it is not clear cut and should not be assumed to be so.

On a different note, Prof. Thio Li-Ann is the NMP of Singapore. Interesting.